Vote No on 3 ad says recreational pot amendment would create a monopoly

[RandySF]

Will a recreational pot measure give one company an economic high?

A new advertisement from the Vote No on 3 campaign asserts that the ballot measure was written to give the state’s largest medical marijuana company a monopoly on the Florida market.

“They wrote it, they rigged it, and they’re hoping you fall for it,” a narrator says in the 30-second spot. “Amendment 3 isn’t the ‘marijuana’ amendment. It’s the ‘monopoly’ amendment.”

While the ad itself never mentions a business by name, a press release makes clear the target: Trulieve. That company through mid-August provided $65 million of the nearly $72 million raised to date for the Smart & Safe Florida campaign supporting Amendment 3. That followed the company completely financing the effort to get the measure on the ballot.

Vote No on 3 campaign officials predicted the measure will fail if voters see it as an effort by a single company to back its own private interests.




https://floridapolitics.com/archives/694871-vote-no-on-3-ad-says-recreational-pot-amendment-would-create-a-monopoly/

[marble falls]

1. That almost happened in Ohio about ten years ago: it would have put it into the hands of three companies ...

... pot heads voted against it.

[msongs]

2. not really. cartels will always underprice artificially high prices set by the legal pushers nt